choking and excelling under pressure in classification n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Choking and Excelling Under Pressure in Classification PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Choking and Excelling Under Pressure in Classification

Choking and Excelling Under Pressure in Classification

20 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Choking and Excelling Under Pressure in Classification

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Choking and Excelling Under Pressure in Classification W. Todd Maddox & Arthur B. Markman University of Texas, Austin Major Collaborators: Grant Baldwin Brian GlassLisa GrimmDarrell Worthy This work is supported by AFOSR grant FA9550-06-1-0204 and NIMH grant R01MH077708

  2. Overview of Talk • Why care about motivation? • Pressure (stress) induces a motivational state that affects cognition • A framework for thinking about motivation and its influence on cognition and learning • Pressure (stress) effects • Application to: • Perceptual classification learning • Pressure effects on classification • learning and experienced behavior

  3. Motivation and Cognition • Why care about motivation? • No behavior without motivation • Motivation affects cognition • Approach positive states and avoid negative states • Motivation rarely controlled in cognitive experiments • No principled distinctions between motivational and cognitive brain regions • Motivation and Cognition need to be studied together

  4. Motivation and Pressure (Stress) • Two current theories of pressure effects on cognition • Distraction: WM resources reduced • Monitoring: Increased monitoring of explicit processes • We suggest that pressure affects cognition through its effects on the motivational state • Working Hypothesis: • Pressure induces an “avoidance” or “prevention” motivational state

  5. Regulatory Fit Framework • Global Motivational Orientation (Higgins: Regulatory Focus Theory) • Approach: Sensitivity to gains in environment (Promotion focus) • Avoidance: Sensitivity to losses in environment (Prevention focus) • Pressure associated with Avoidance (prevention) state • Local Task Reward Structure • Gains in the environment • Losses in the environment • Regulatory focus interacts with task reward structure

  6. Consider the bigger picture • Almost all cognitive research involves a promotion focus and a gains reward structure • Recall Pressure associated with prevention (mismatch) Fit

  7. Regulatory Fit • Regulatory focus interacts with task reward structure • Regulatory fit increases “flexible” cognitive processing. • Flexibility can be defined within tasks • Willingness to test various strategies • Willingness to explore the environment • Hold off question of “why” for now

  8. Perceptual Classification Maddox, Baldwin & Markman (2006; Memory & Cognition)

  9. Perceptual Classification Task • Stimuli with small number of underlying dimensions • Lines that vary in length, orientation and position • Experimenter control of category structure • Extensive set of tools for modeling performance of individual participants • Can assess the strategies participants use in the task

  10. Scatterplot of Stimuli o = category A = long, steep lines + = category B = all others

  11. Possible Rule-based Strategies 83% accuracy 100% accuracy

  12. Regulatory Focus(Global Task Goal) 90% correct yields “bonus”

  13. Task Reward Structure(Local Trial-by-trial Task Goal)

  14. Experiment Screen Sample Gains Losses

  15. Yes Bonus No 18 0

  16. Yes Bonus No 21 18 Correct 0

  17. Yes Bonus No 21 0

  18. Yes Bonus No 22 Wrong, that was an A 0

  19. Experiment Set 1Flexibility is Advantageous • Conjunctive Rule-Based Task • Exploration of verbal rule space required

  20. Performance Results Plots averaged over blocks. Effects generally larger early in learning

  21. Conclusions • In a classification task where exploration of the verbal rule space is advantageous, a regulatory fit led to better performance.

  22. Experiment Set 2Flexibility is Disadvantageous • Information-Integration Task

  23. Experimental Method identical to Experiment Set 1

  24. Prediction • If regulatory fit = more flexibility, then rule-based strategies should persist leading to poorer performance • COVIS assumes that rule-based strategies dominate early. • Rule-based strategies must be abandoned in information-integration tasks • Exceeding the bonus requires abandoning rule-based strategies

  25. Performance Results (Losses)

  26. Conclusions • We observe a 3-way interaction between regulatory focus, task reward structure, and nature of the task. • Flexibility advantageous: Fit is good • Flexibility disadvantageous: Fit is bad

  27. Application 2:Choking Under Pressure Markman, Maddox & Worthy (2006; Psychological Science)

  28. Choking Under Pressure • Anecdotal phenomenon (e.g. sports, test-taking, etc.) • People perform worse than normal when under pressure • Might pressure be similar to a prevention focus?

  29. Categorization Tasks Rule-Based Information-Integration

  30. Method • Gains only • Low pressure – “do your best” • High pressure: -Paired with a ‘partner’ -If both of you reach criterion, both get $6 -If one of you fails neither get $6 bonus -Partner reached criterion

  31. Predictions

  32. Results

  33. Summary • Pressure does appear to operate like a prevention focus during classification learning (at least with gains). • Pressure (a mismatch with gains) hurts rule-based learning, but helps information-integration learning.

  34. Pressure and Experience • Method • 2500 trials over 4 sessions with NO pressure manipulation • 5th session: pressure or no pressure • 5th session final block: super pressure • No error in 80 trials yields $100 (no partner)

  35. Categorization Tasks Rule-Based Information-Integration

  36. Final Control vs. First Pressure Block • Final control accuracy high (90% in all conditions • Pressure improves II, but not RB (interaction nearly significant)

  37. Final Pressure (or Control) vs. Super Pressure Block • Super pressure adversely affected both RB conditions • Super pressure adversely affected the II Control condition • Super pressure accentuated the II Pressure condition

  38. Summary • Pressure generally improves II performance even when experienced. • Pressure generally hurts RB performance even when experienced.

  39. Related Findings • Interaction between Regulatory Focus, Reward Structure and Task • Binary category structures: Same pattern • Card selection task: • More exploratory behavior for Regulatory Fit • May explain some stereotype threat • A stereotype threat induces prevention focus • Participants perform better under losses than gains

  40. Future Research • Cognitive mechanisms in this effect • Role of working memory? • Relationship to individual differences • Personality variables • Cultural difference variables • Other tasks • Foraging • Wisconsin Card Sorting Task

  41. Thank You

  42. Super Pressure Block First Trial Missed • Final control accuracy high (???%) • Equivalent across RB and II conditions • Pressure improves II, but not RB

  43. Why we should care • Motivation affects decision making • Preferences (Brendl, Markman, & Messner; Ferguson & Bargh) • Need to smoke increases preference for smoking related items and reduces preference for not smoking related items • Goal-adoption (Aarts et al, Fishbach & Shah) • People adopt goals of people around them. • Selection of optimal behavior (Bechara et al., Busemeyer & Townsend) • All cognitive research has an (uncontrolled) motivational component • “motivate” to “try harder” • “Motivation” brain regions reciprocally connected with “cognitive” brain regions

  44. Regulatory Fit Framework • Hypothesis: A “fit” between global task goals (regulatory focus) and local task goals (task reward structure) increases “flexible” cognitive processing. • Flexibility can be defined within tasks • Willingness to test various strategies • Willingness to explore the environment • Hold off question of “why” for now?

  45. Regulatory Fit = Flexibility: Why? • Empirical support in several domains • Connection to Neuroscience • Positive affect-frontal dopamine-flexibility hypothesis (Isen, Ashby, etc) • Regulatory focus-frontal activation findings (Amodio, Cunningham, etc) • LC-NE-exploration/exploitation relation (Ashton-Jones, Cohen, Daw)

  46. Rule-Based Modeling • More low pressure (fit) subjects were best fit by the rule-based models. • More high pressure (mismatch) subjects are random.

  47. Information integration modeling • More high pressure subjects best fit by an information integration model. • More low pressure subjects random.

  48. Studying Regulatory Fit Effects • How can we study this systematically? • Need task for which we can manipulate the advantageousness of flexibility, while holding other task characteristics fixed • Need a good manipulation of regulatory focus • Need to be able to manipulate reward structure

  49. Choking Under Pressure • Basketball data • Free throw during last minute of game

  50. Model-based Analyses • Decision-bound models (Ashby & Maddox) fit to each participant block-by-block